Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Johnson v. Johnson, 09-7454 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-7454 Visitors: 19
Filed: Nov. 24, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7454 JOSHUA MITCH JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; JOHN JABE, Deputy Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; GARY BASS, Chief of Classification of the Virginia Department of Corrections; DORIS L. EWING, former Senior Manager for Courts and Legal Services for the Virginia Department of Corrections; WENDY K. BROWN, Senior Manager for Courts and Le
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7454 JOSHUA MITCH JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; JOHN JABE, Deputy Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; GARY BASS, Chief of Classification of the Virginia Department of Corrections; DORIS L. EWING, former Senior Manager for Courts and Legal Services for the Virginia Department of Corrections; WENDY K. BROWN, Senior Manager for Courts and Legal Services for the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00207-gec-mfu) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua Mitch Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joshua Mitch Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. Johnson, No. 7:09-cv- 00207-gec-mfu (W.D. Va. July 27, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer